Target trial emulation using new comorbidity indices provided risk estimates comparable to a randomized trial

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Marcus Westerberg , Hans Garmo , David Robinson , Pär Stattin , Rolf Gedeborg
{"title":"Target trial emulation using new comorbidity indices provided risk estimates comparable to a randomized trial","authors":"Marcus Westerberg ,&nbsp;Hans Garmo ,&nbsp;David Robinson ,&nbsp;Pär Stattin ,&nbsp;Rolf Gedeborg","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To quantify the ability of two new comorbidity indices to adjust for confounding, by benchmarking a target trial emulation against the randomized controlled trial (RCT) result.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><p>Observational study including 18,316 men from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 5.0, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2008 and 2019 and treated with primary radical prostatectomy (RP, <em>n</em> = 14,379) or radiotherapy (RT, <em>n</em> = 3,937). The effect on adjusted risk of death from any cause after adjustment for comorbidity by use of two new comorbidity indices, the multidimensional diagnosis-based comorbidity index and the drug comorbidity index, were compared to adjustment for the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Risk of death was higher after RT than RP (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.70–2.21). The difference decreased when adjusting for age, cancer characteristics, and CCI (HR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.06–1.66). Adjustment for the two new comorbidity indices further attenuated the difference (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91–1.44). Emulation of a hypothetical pragmatic trial where also older men with any type of baseline comorbidity were included, largely confirmed these results (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.95–1.26).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Adjustment for comorbidity using two new indices provided comparable risk of death from any cause in line with results of a RCT. Similar results were seen in a broader study population, more representative of clinical practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 111504"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002609/pdfft?md5=66bdbf3013b9d88ca0da75aec3fcdb62&pid=1-s2.0-S0895435624002609-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624002609","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To quantify the ability of two new comorbidity indices to adjust for confounding, by benchmarking a target trial emulation against the randomized controlled trial (RCT) result.

Study Design and Setting

Observational study including 18,316 men from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 5.0, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2008 and 2019 and treated with primary radical prostatectomy (RP, n = 14,379) or radiotherapy (RT, n = 3,937). The effect on adjusted risk of death from any cause after adjustment for comorbidity by use of two new comorbidity indices, the multidimensional diagnosis-based comorbidity index and the drug comorbidity index, were compared to adjustment for the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI).

Results

Risk of death was higher after RT than RP (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.70–2.21). The difference decreased when adjusting for age, cancer characteristics, and CCI (HR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.06–1.66). Adjustment for the two new comorbidity indices further attenuated the difference (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91–1.44). Emulation of a hypothetical pragmatic trial where also older men with any type of baseline comorbidity were included, largely confirmed these results (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.95–1.26).

Conclusion

Adjustment for comorbidity using two new indices provided comparable risk of death from any cause in line with results of a RCT. Similar results were seen in a broader study population, more representative of clinical practice.

Abstract Image

使用新的合并症指数进行目标试验模拟,可提供与随机试验相当的风险估计值。
目的:通过将目标试验模拟与随机对照试验结果进行对比,量化两种新的合并症指数调整混杂因素的能力:通过将目标试验模拟与随机对照试验结果进行比对,量化两种新合并症指数调整混杂因素的能力:观察性研究包括瑞典前列腺癌数据库5.0中的18 316名男性,他们在2008年至2019年间被诊断为前列腺癌,并接受了原发性根治性前列腺切除术(n=14 379)或放射治疗(n=3937)。通过使用两种新的合并症指数(基于诊断的多维合并症指数(MDCI)和药物合并症指数(DCI))对合并症进行调整后,调整后的任何原因死亡风险对调整后的死亡风险的影响与夏尔森合并症指数(CCI)的影响进行了比较:结果:放疗后的死亡风险高于根治性前列腺切除术(HR=1.94;95% CI:1.70 - 2.21)。调整年龄、癌症特征和 CCI 后,差异有所缩小(HR=1.32;95% CI:1.06 - 1.66)。调整两个新的合并症指数后,差异进一步缩小(HR 1.14,95% CI 0.91 - 1.44)。在一项假定的实用性试验中,也纳入了有任何基线合并症的老年男性,该试验在很大程度上证实了这些结果(HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.95 - 1.26):结论:使用两种新指数对合并症进行调整后,任何原因导致的死亡风险都具有可比性,这与随机对照试验的结果一致。类似的结果也出现在更广泛的研究人群中,更能代表临床实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信